43 F.4th 617
6th Cir.2022Background
- Rieth-Riley was party to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requiring monthly contributions to seven employee benefit funds administered by Operating Engineers’ Local 324 Fringe Benefit Funds.
- The trade association terminated the CBA; Local 324 affirmed termination and initially refused to negotiate or accept post‑expiration payments Rieth‑Riley tendered.
- Rieth‑Riley later discovered a prior agreement showing a § 9(a) union‑employer relationship, after which the Funds accepted payments; a year later the Funds alleged missed payments and sought an audit.
- The Funds sued in federal district court under ERISA § 515 (29 U.S.C. § 1145) and LMRA § 301 to compel an audit and collect alleged delinquent contractual contributions.
- Rieth‑Riley moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, arguing that absent a live contract the dispute is an NLRA unfair‑labor‑practice matter for the NLRB; the district court agreed and dismissed without prejudice.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that whether a live contract exists is a merits question for the district court in an ERISA § 515 suit, not a jurisdictional predicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether existence of a live contract is a jurisdictional prerequisite for an ERISA § 515 claim | Funds: contract existence is a merits element; district court has jurisdiction to decide it | Rieth‑Riley: contract presence is an essential jurisdictional fact; without it claim belongs to NLRB | Court: No — contract existence goes to the merits, not jurisdiction; district court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Advanced Lightweight bars district‑court ERISA suits post‑CBA expiration absent a contract | Funds: Advanced Lightweight prevents litigating NLRA claims in district court but does not make contract existence jurisdictional | Rieth‑Riley: Advanced Lightweight means a contractual relationship is jurisdictional predicate | Court: Advanced Lightweight is limited to preventing ERISA from being used to litigate NLRA claims; it does not convert contract existence into a jurisdictional prerequisite |
| Whether RiverStone supports treating contract absence as jurisdictional | Funds: RiverStone involved plaintiffs asserting labor‑law duties, not contractual claims, so it’s distinguishable | Rieth‑Riley: RiverStone supports a broader reading of Advanced Lightweight | Court: RiverStone is factually different and does not control; it does not establish a jurisdictional rule |
| Status of the Funds’ LMRA § 301 argument on appeal | Funds: LMRA § 301 would independently support jurisdiction over audit/collection claims | Rieth‑Riley: NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction if claim is NLRA‑based | Court: Funds failed to meaningfully develop LMRA argument on appeal and forfeited it |
Key Cases Cited
- Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., 484 U.S. 539 (1988) (ERISA remedy limited to contractual contributions; district courts cannot use ERISA to adjudicate NLRA unfair‑labor‑practice claims)
- Litton Financial Printing Division v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) (employer may not unilaterally alter terms affecting bargaining during negotiations)
- NLRB v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (NLRB has primary jurisdiction over activity arguably protected or prohibited by NLRA)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978) (limits on courts adjudicating claims arguably subject to NLRA)
- Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Behnke, 883 F.2d 454 (6th Cir. 1989) (post‑expiration contract existence is a merits issue; court retained jurisdiction under ERISA)
- Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. General Materials, Inc., 535 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2008) (treated post‑expiration ERISA § 515 claim as merits, not jurisdictional)
- RiverStone Group, Inc. v. Midwest Operating Engineers Fringe Benefits Funds, 33 F.4th 424 (7th Cir. 2022) (in absence of a contractual provision, status‑quo duty is for the NLRB; factually distinct from cases alleging contractual breach)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (distinguishes jurisdictional requirements from elements of a claim)
- Daft v. Advest, Inc., 658 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2011) (existence of ERISA plan is an element of the claim, not a jurisdictional prerequisite)